Second Parole Plea Filed Only By Changing Date of Daughter’s Marriage Not Justifiable : Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Petition

Read Time: 04 minutes


The court highlighted that the petitioner had previously violated parole conditions with a 1,043-day delay from his scheduled return to jail

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected a second parole request from a convict under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, who sought release for two weeks to attend his daughter's wedding.

The court, presided over by Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, found that a new petition based solely on a changed wedding date is not justifiable. “This Court is unable to comprehend, how a fresh petition is maintainable merely on the change of the date of marriage, once the earlier petition for the same cause of action was dismissed as withdrawn,” it observed.

Despite the withdrawal, the petitioner filed a new petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and Section 3(1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962.

The court also took into consideration the jail authority's prior order which revealed that the petitioner had previously violated parole conditions. Following a fresh case registration, the petitioner was rearrested on January 26, 2024, after a 1,043-day delay from his scheduled return to jail on March 19, 2021.

The court further observed that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the previous order in the current petition. Upon questioning, the petitioner’s counsel failed to satisfactorily explain the omission of the previous order. The court noted, "It seems that the speaking order (supra) has been deliberately concealed from this Court, and only by changing the date of marriage of the petitioner's daughter, a fresh petition has been filed.”

The court criticised the petitioner's conduct, suggesting an attempt to mislead the court for a favourable parole order, stating "The conduct of the petitioner is highly deprecable and cannot be appreciated.”

Consequently, the court dismissed the plea, remarking that  “Though the present petitioner is liable to be burdened with an exemplary costs, for filing such a frivolous petition, but considering the fact that he is behind the bars, this Court refrains itself to do so.”